Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby jedrider » Fri 21 Jul 2017, 13:07:43

Another interesting article in the popular (though learned) press:

Burning Fossil Fuels Almost Ended All Life on Earth
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/a-road-trip-to-the-end-of-the-world/532914/?utm_source=atlfb

These articles appearing all of a sudden is probably a direct result NOT of people understanding climate models, but of people simply observing that the world is warming at a 'frightening' and UNDENIABLE pace.

After visiting ancient fossil reefs and lifeless rock exposures, this might have been my best view of what was happening at the end of the Permian. As far as we can tell, we’re shooting carbon dioxide up into the atmosphere ten times faster than the ancient volcanoes of Russia did during the end-Permian mass extinction, an episode that almost ended the project of complex life on Earth. Our planet is once again at a crossroads, and the tangled path to redemption is still very much open. But we now find ourselves falling towards the first steps down an older, much darker road.

“What we’re doing is the equivalent of that supervolcano going through Siberia,” Knapp said, overlooking the pit. “By stripping out all of the coal from everywhere it exists on Earth and burning it. And we’re doing it really, really fast. So we have an analog in Earth’s history. And it’s fucking scary.”
User avatar
jedrider
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 09:10:44

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 21 Jul 2017, 14:06:06

Again, a total non-sequitur. I have never believed that the world was not warming, I simply believe that the vast majority of the warming is entirely natural, and that mankind's contribution is insignificant.

Evidence of warming is not evidence of AGW.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby drwater » Fri 21 Jul 2017, 19:51:16

KJ said:
Again, a total non-sequitur. I have never believed that the world was not warming, I simply believe that the vast majority of the warming is entirely natural, and that mankind's contribution is insignificant.


KJ,

Then what "natural" factors could be causing the warming we are definitely seeing? If anything, we should be on the cooling side of things naturally moving gradually into the next ice age, but we sure are not.

Let see:
Sunspots or solar output - nope
earth tilt - nope
earth orbit - nope
cosmic rays - nope
Pacific Decadal Oscillation - maybe a little, but only sustained a few years at a time

The only plausible thing left is GHGs. And all the ancillary evidence (cooling stratosphere, etc.) also points that direction.

There has been a lot of new data and instrumentation in the skies and oceans since you looked at things in 1995. And it all points to GHGs and is consistent with anthropogenic global warming. The only unknown any more is how serious, how quickly will the effects be.
drwater
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon 12 May 2014, 14:08:28

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 21 Jul 2017, 21:04:48

There is evidence for and against AGW. I attempt to stay familiar with both sides of this ongoing debate. Other members, whoom I call the AGW fanboys, are not at all scientific in their approach, are unwilling to either admit that the debate will continue for decades to come with no resolution, and insist that there is no uncertainty and become downright abusive of people who do not share their climate obsession.

These folks are also abusive of "Big Oil" and lots of similar labels for their climate villians. They somehow believe that there are groups of black-hatted villians that are deliberately and with malice aforethought killing our planet. When you point out that domesticated livestock are directly responsible for 51% of the greenhouse gas emissions, which is 3X the 17% created by vehicles burning fossil fuels, they change the subject. Likewise they resist the demographic analysis of "Big Oil", because it turns out that the largest group holding energy stocks is elderly UK citizens, and the second largest group is elderly US citizens - niether group actually fits the silly narrative of "Big Oil" villians. It is simply that "blue Chip" energy stocks are much in favor as conservative dividend-paying
investments.

Reality, what a concept.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 22 Jul 2017, 09:34:47

dissident wrote:Another vapid post by troll KJ. No pertinent material as to the questions posed and the subject of the thread but lots of non sequitur tin foil hat political BS.


I am the one who posted on the topic of this thread, and you are the one who posted a pure ad hominem. That would be exactly the type of response and the lack of reasoning I expect from silly AGW fanboys.

Now for the totally clueless, the topic of the thread is AGW/CC. I have posted ON TOPIC. I have a minority opinion, one shared by a minority of climate scientists. You AGW fanboys have no expertise that justifies an opinion (you are not scientists and are not applying the scientific method), no understanding of the process of science (which requires debate and not any form of concensus), and no ability to reason objectively (because you keep attacking me and not my ideas).

Get over yourselves. Always remember that to humanity at large, you AGW fanboys are a lunatic fringe group, and that the vast majority will pay you just enough lip service to make you go away and quit bothering them.

The tragedy that is about to befall the human race has nothing whatsoever to do with a warming world, rising seas, or climate change of any kind. We can and we will survive all of that - even the dumb beasts will survive that. Nor does it really matter that we like SUVs more than bicycles. Even if AGW were real and significant, all of it's effects are survivable, tolerable, and will even be found enjoyable by some humans.

What is really going to hurt us, kill most of us, and mark our souls forever with tragedy recorded in bit-perfect digital storage, is the depletion of cheap fossil fuels to burn and make cheap energy. That is the real tragedy, the one you are ignoring when you attempt to trump up support for your CC and AGW nonsense.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 23 Jul 2017, 07:02:19

Jimminy Christmas people! I go on vacation for a week in this is the way you 'adults' react? By going on an ad hom attack spree against a member who disagrees with your consensus?

I just yanked a string of ad homs posted by members dohboi, kiwichick, Cid_Yama, jedrider and dissident.

You should each and every one feel ashamed of yourselves for behaving in a juvenile manner only suitable for ten year old and younger children.

Environment forum got moved back into public view with the expectation that you could all behave in an adult manner. If you can't stomach polite disagreement go hang out on Twitter or FaceBook. The appropriate response would have been to ignore the posts you disagree with or post your own links disputing those points you find repugnant, not voicing personal attacks on the person who posted those positions.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13821
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 23 Jul 2017, 07:44:45

T, as always, thank you for your service, and I'm glad you had a vacation.

Quick question, though: Am I right that denialist rants are off topic here and should be confined to the appropriate sticky thread "Global Warming/CC is a Hoax"?
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16464
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sun 23 Jul 2017, 08:38:25

Thank you, Tanada.

As for the rest of you, let's review where we are at:

1) On two occasions, I have asked for and not been given information about working climate models from the other peakoil.com members. The idea being that we would take such models, enter them into a computer, and then run analyses of temperature using online data sets. Unlike the rest of you, I have done this in the past (although it was under the leadership of another) and I'm retired, I can therefore devote the required time and effort that this takes. Believe me, each run of a model takes days of effort, and the first run of a climate model requires weeks of effort. That's because at most you get the model equations, you have to program it and debug it yourself. I have never found any online climate models in the form of executable files with instructions on how to use them. But if you know of such, that would be a tremendous timesaver, and I'll be glad to look.

The last time I did this, I was still a working man, and a member of a team led by a man who had a doctorate in Physics, and was working in applied magnetics at the nearby IBM laboratory (i.e. he was improving hard disk drives). Two other team members were software types that worked here in the valley, and they still live here and all three of us are now retired - one is my next door neighbor.

2) Because none of you are even willing to respond to this request, I consider it a reliable indication that none of you have ever indulged in this type of activity in the past. Please, if you have ever done so, and you have personal knowledge that climate models that predict warming exist and can be confirmed, speak up now and identify such models, the data sets they were run with, and the place and time where the original results were published.

3) In the absence of such inputs, I assume that NONE OF YOU have personal knowledge that confirms AGW and CC. I believe based on the doctoral dissertation by one of my daughter's classmates (now the mother of two, one older and one younger than my own daughter's twins) that the vast majority of people have no such direct knowledge. Instead, they are in thrall of a psychological disfunction known as "group think", which causes them to give credit to obviously defective conclusions such as those in the IPCC summary reports.

4) Speaking as a computer professional, I do not believe that working climate models exist at the present time. I further believe that the state of computing technology is at present completely inadequate to model earthly climate, in fact it's off by a factor of three orders of magnitude - much more than the improvements in hardware and software since I made the last attempt to confirm such models in the mid-1990's. Nor (while we are discussing such) are there uncorrupted online datasets any longer. The ice core data, the tree ring data, the lake bed sediment cores, the sea water temperatures, all have been "processed" or "corrected", or "clarified" by silly pretenders to the title "scientist", with the express purpose of altering such data to demonstrate warming trends which did not exist before the alteration. The online versions of such data are unreliable, and the original online data has been taken offline. (If you have actually been paying attention, that was the scandal at the heart of the East Anglia "Climategate" controversy that was discussed in the blog posts I linked to a few messages back.)

5) I do not believe that any of you are engaged in a conspiracy of any sort. I also do not believe that the scientific community at large is engaged in a climate conspiracy. I believe that any possibility of ever successfully modelling planetary climate is now gone, at least for some decades, possibly for a century or more. The basis for my belief is that - far from being a liesurely scientific investigation - the AGW/CC issue is now a political football. You are all about to have your faces rubbed in this stinky mess because Donald Trump now ultimately controls the biggest pot of funding for "climate science", and he is demanding the polar opposite results than were demanded by the last administration. Furthermore, with their livelihoods now dependent upon disproving AGW/CC, the various "scientific researchers" are going to deliver what he demands. The AGW/CC controversy is now purely political, and will never again be a "scientific" question in the lifetimes of any of us.

Which is why I no longer capitalize "science", and so-called "scientists" don't get any respect from me. NONE OF THIS IS NEWS, I have been consistent and relentless while arguing this position in countless threads over the last few years.

The only thing that I regret is that it was necessary for me to question the "religion" of most of you, and that caused a fierce resentment that resulted in a backlash borne mostly by me, but also the very few others that are not fierce devotees of the most popular religion of the day, which is "Science" (note the capitalization, necessary to make my point on this one occasion).

Just to hammer my point once more, the practitioners of "science", the modern day priests in white lab coats, are no more virtuous, no more honest, and no less human than those other priests who work for that robed man in Vatican City, or that bloody-handed religious zealot in Iran.

The only difference is that you are knowingly supporting the religion called "science", via your taxes, administered by that stooge of the man in the White House, the National Science Advisor. Who is now rubbing your nose in the fact that the new religion is very like the older religions we already had.

Edit: dohboi, you are wrong. We indulge in debate here, and we don't demand that everybody believe the same things, or goose-step in unison like good little fascists. Nor can YOU - or the collected lot of you - even though you share the same opinions about the open controversy of AGW/CC, move this debate from the true status of "open and ultimately unkowable" controversy to "scientific fact".

That would be because most of you lack the courage to accept the uncertainty, when it involves you and your fate, or the fate of the entire human race. But the actual status is, we won't know about AGW/CC for a century at least.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dissident » Sun 23 Jul 2017, 09:09:56

KaiserJeep wrote:The most recent, most publicised Global Warming frauds:

Michael Mann, UVA climate scientist, is being prosecuted for a 2002 statute, the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, as part of the East Anglia "Climategate" scandal.


A day late and a dollar short, troll. Mann is succeeding in taking the libel spreaders trying to defame him to court. Some obscure harassment lawsuit trying to propagate the same libel hardly constitutes evidence of fraud.

https://www.inverse.com/article/26429-m ... tion-libel

NOAA itself was busted for warming up temperature data last February by retired NOAA climate scientist John Bates. Bates had been one of two Principal Scientists at the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).

Both NoAA and the IPCC were busted in the "Pausebuster" scandal when the published "Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4", or ERSSTv4, which tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade.


http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-dat ... n-at-noaa/

So yet more libel and defamation without a shred of evidence. And by the way, American chauvinist troll, the USA is not the only human society on the planet and data sets confirming the absence of any cooling and validating ongoing warming exist in other countries taken by independent researchers.

In October 2016 there was a UK scandal where the UK government gave $11 million dollars to the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) in exchange for research that the organization reportedly never actually did. Instead they made lists of papers that others had published, mis-represented the resulys, and claimed credit.


The UK government also gave tens of millions of pounds to the White Helmet jihadis in Syria. These are Al Qaeda that pose as aid workers and stage fake rescues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-66GeoMRW0

So UK government wrong doing is not evidence of scientist wrong doing. The CCCEP is not an academic institution.

The pattern is clear: if the actual data does not support the modelled warming trend, the data is "adjusted" until the trend is shown, and the adjusted figures are archived in place of the original data. Time and again, it is happening.

READ and respond to the 12 blog articles above. You see, YOU are the one denying reality when you exclude knowledge of AGW cheats, and automatically discard any publication that does not support your flawed AGW theory.

Now you are free to repeat your "97% of all climate scientists believe...." argument. Total BS that would be, science is not done by popular opinion.

Doughboy, just how is it that you are so abymally ignorant of all the datasets that dispute the AGW theory?

I believe it's because you are wearing blinders, and excluding valid data that does not support your favorite theory.


You have utterly failed to provide a single shred of evidence of fraud by scientists. You lose.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4895
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby jedrider » Sun 23 Jul 2017, 11:11:30

KaiserJeep wrote:There is evidence for and against AGW. I attempt to stay familiar with both sides of this ongoing debate. Other members, whoom I call the AGW fanboys, are not at all scientific in their approach, are unwilling to either admit that the debate will continue for decades to come with no resolution, and insist that there is no uncertainty and become downright abusive of people who do not share their climate obsession.


That is SO ad hominen, all it is missing are the names!

These folks are also abusive of "Big Oil" and lots of similar labels for their climate villains. They somehow believe that there are groups of black-hatted villains that are deliberately and with malice aforethought killing our planet. When you point out that domesticated livestock are directly responsible for 51% of the greenhouse gas emissions, which is 3X the 17% created by vehicles burning fossil fuels, they change the subject. Likewise they resist the demographic analysis of "Big Oil", because it turns out that the largest group holding energy stocks is elderly UK citizens, and the second largest group is elderly US citizens - neither group actually fits the silly narrative of "Big Oil" villians. It is simply that "blue Chip" energy stocks are much in favor as conservative dividend-paying
investments.


Who is THEY? Almost irrelevant and another veiled 'ad hominem.

Reality, what a concept.


Ditto.
User avatar
jedrider
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 09:10:44

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sun 23 Jul 2017, 11:37:29

For the still totally clueless and unreasoning among you, I'll explain in excrutiating detail. When you quote my prose, call me a "troll", and ignore my ideas while attacking me in particular, that is called ad hominem, which is Latin terminology for attacking a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Also, in this modern day of tweets, twitters, and keying acronyms on phones with your thumbs, I feel obligated to further enlighten your undereducated souls by explaining that "ad hom" is NOT the abbreviation for "ad hominem", because every single syllable of the latter word is meaningful in Latin. "Ad hom" is another Latin term that literally means "not comparable", which cannot be abbreviated as can English, without changing the meaning of what you are saying.

So try again, without the personal insults, if you feel your position has any credibility at all.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 23 Jul 2017, 12:04:42

http://mashable.com/2016/03/21/co2-fast ... 3OmfMP.uqt
Kaiser whether it is our domesticated animals or our cars etc. mankind has been busy via its activities causing so much extra emissions that they are rising at fastest rate since 66 million years ago. We know also, that these levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are consistent with a much warmer planet . So what does the Sun's radiance have to do with CO2 present in the atmosphere? And we are beginning to witness the consequences of this greenhouse effect with abnormal arming in the Arctic and permafrost melting. We are also witnessing the oceans becoming increasingly more acidic, a sign of CO2 saturation . How an you deny our role in all this?
“"If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money"”
User avatar
onlooker
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7561
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 23 Jul 2017, 12:55:18

"clueless and unreasoning"

How is that not ad hom??

You are always berating people for not answering questions, but since you have been allowed to take over this thread with off topic comments, perhaps you could answer this:

Which part of climate science can't you bring yourself to accept?

• The fact that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gasses?
• The fact the the level of these have increased in the atmosphere dramatically?
• The fact that this increase is primarily due to the fact that we have burned massive quantities of fossil fuels?
• The fact that, as expected from the above, average global temperatures have been increasing, now by about 1 degree C above pre-industrial levels?

Which of these do you have problems with exactly, and why?

Or is there something else, some reason you find these blindingly obvious dots so hard to connect?

Or are you afraid to answer other people's questions?
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16464
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 23 Jul 2017, 13:00:36

Meanwhile, there are actual stories out there about the actual titular topic of this thread, rather than just tail chasing endless denialist tripe:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/2017-S ... st_29.html

2017 is so [freakin'] unexpectedly warm it is freaking out climate scientists

"Extremely remarkable" 2017 heads toward record for hottest year without an El Niño episode.



Image
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16464
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 23 Jul 2017, 13:03:10

dohboi wrote:T, as always, thank you for your service, and I'm glad you had a vacation.

Quick question, though: Am I right that denialist rants are off topic here and should be confined to the appropriate sticky thread "Global Warming/CC is a Hoax"?


I would prefer that people post on topic which most closely matches their message but just as you are allowed to post in the 'Hoax' thread those who disagree with your (and my) position on AGW are allowed to post here. As I told you a couple weeks ago I have given up stopping 'general' insults but still try and coral the personal attacks when I see them.

If you feel the 'rants' as you personally define them are off topic here you can use the quote function, enter your response, then cut and paste the whole thing in the thread where you believe it should be. This is not to create duplicate messages mind you, but to put the quote you are responding to and your response in the other thread where you believe it belongs. In my experience people will respond to the thread where you respond to them most of the time so be using the cut and paste method you can shift the discussion to the thread you think it should be discussed in.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13821
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dissident » Sun 23 Jul 2017, 13:09:25

dohboi wrote:Meanwhile, there are actual stories out there about the actual titular topic of this thread, rather than just tail chasing endless denialist tripe:

Image


The much yapped about hiatus was a transient slowdown in the warming. It was never a cooling. Deniers are always grasping at straws and that is because they have no case and no alternative explanations. But they do have a political/"religious" agenda. BTW, we are going to have more such "hiatus" events. The exchange of heat between the atmosphere and oceans exhibits all sorts of long term variations.

It will be interesting to see what the deniers will produce as evidence to back up their defamation of Mann during trial. Like the troll here, they have nothing but debunked talking points and ad hominem attacks based on nothing. Ad hominem attacks on deniers are fully justified because they are based on facts including the obvious issue that deniers lie, lie, and deny.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4895
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sun 23 Jul 2017, 13:30:20

Sigh. One more time I will try to communicate the concept "ad hominem", with examples and discussion - because you still do not get it.

I don't use usernames or derivatives. I don't use pronouns in a message I'm replying to, making it annoyingly obvious whom exactly you are calling a troll.

"Ad hominem" I already defined. I also explicitly defined "ad hom" and pointed out that the second term stands alone and has a different meaning. Now I will mention that the Romans - who stole most of their science and philosophy from the Greeks, don't use abbreviattions, ever. The Greeks and Romans did not abbreviate "anno dominem" (literally "the year of our lord") as "AD", the English and Germans did that, over their protests. Likewise the Midieval English monks shortened "id est" (literall;y "that is") to "i.e." as they "illuminated" the manucripts they copied - the Greeks or Romans did not use abbreviations, did not have the concept even when carving letters in stone.

I don't make ad hominem attacks. I invented the term "AGW fanboys" to avoid becoming personal when discussing the topic. If you don't know what it means I can explicitly define it for you. Since the vast majority of you believe that AGW and CC are real and significant, and a small minority of us do not, I'd just point out that your normal labels for people that do not agree with your ideas, which are "troll", "deniers", etc. are insults when applied in context to individual peakoil.com members. If you can't find an inpersonal not insulting label like "AGW fanboys", then simply do not reply, as per the forum conduct guidelines.

dohboi, I understand all of the concepts you listed, and considered togather, they don't even make a weak argument that AGW is a valid theory, or that AGW and CC models are valid models of real Earth climate.

onlooker, I made the point about livestock because a great many people spend a lot of time blaming energy companies for their own activities. They eat meat and dairy and eggs and cheese and vegetables, but do not accept that they are responsible for livestock emissions, or even the exhausts of the agricultural machinery growing crops. They haul their fat and lazy carcasses around in multi-ton petroleum-fuelled vehicles, and blame the oil companies.

People collectively are destroying the planet, because there simply are too many of us, and our impact is not sustainable. Blame yourself for the things you do, and if you really and truly are troubled by mankind's impact, then do everything in your power to reduce it, including quitting your job, moving to a different place, buying a different vehicle, and completely changing your lifestyle. Otherwise shut up and quit blaming others.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 23 Jul 2017, 13:36:27

Thanks for the suggestion, T.

I'll give it a try and see if it works:

KJ wrote: "I understand all of the concepts you listed, and considered togather, they don't even make a weak argument that AGW is a valid theory"

KJ, following our wonderful moderators suggestion, I am responding to this in the appropriate thread, "GW/CC is a Hoax". Please follow me there if you would like to continue the conversation. :-D
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16464
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 23 Jul 2017, 13:51:19

Dis, good points, as usual.

The graph makes it quite clear that there was not long-term pause.

What I'm wondering is whether there will be even much of a backing off of this latest El Nino, since this is looking to be the hottest non-El Nino year ever. If next year again sets a record for non-El Nino years, it will likely be coming in close to or hotter than 2016.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16464
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dissident » Sun 23 Jul 2017, 14:13:09

dohboi wrote:Dis, good points, as usual.

The graph makes it quite clear that there was not long-term pause.

What I'm wondering is whether there will be even much of a backing off of this latest El Nino, since this is looking to be the hottest non-El Nino year ever. If next year again sets a record for non-El Nino years, it will likely be coming in close to or hotter than 2016.


We can expect some record breakers but should keep in mind that all this heat may still trigger some dynamical response in the oceans other than the stratification. So cold deep waters could still be dragged to the surface and introduce a "cooling" or "hiatus" (non-event). Eventually the ocean system will lock itself into the shallow, isolated surface mode.

The pattern we are seeing suggest we are going to exceed the 3 C per CO2 doubling sensitivity figure.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4895
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests